have a few concerns…

have a few concerns regarding the Bill 23 “Build more homes faster Act”. This Bill has some good elements but it is simply not ready for implementation. I suggest you pause the bill and significantly revise the document prior to implementation. If implemented in this stage there will be significant economic, social, and environmental costs. The following letter will focus on the economic concerns regarding affordable housing, development charges, and possible tax increases required with the bill.

The first concern is how “affordable housing” is proposed to be tied to market rates of existing houses rather than income. In Caledon this will increase the price of an affordable house from $600,000 to $1,100,000. That represents an increase of $500,000 just by the passing of a bill, residents are simply not ready for this drastic increase in housing price.

The term “affordable housing”, with the revisions to the definition most new development will be able to fall into the proposed exception from development charges. Development charges are intended to pay for public services required by new developments such as road widening, intersection signalization, water main improvements, community centers, fire services, and police services. If development is no longer paying for development these costs will need to be passed onto the existing taxpayer. Preliminary estimations by staff in the City of Brampton estimate that taxes will need to be increased by 80%. In bedroom communities this cost would have to be paid by the existing homeowners, many of which are already struggling to make ends meet with inflation.

Finally, this bill doesn’t guarantee that costs saved in skipping development charges will be passed onto the end user. It is likely that affordable housing costs will be raised at the expense of existing homeowners, while developers pocket the profits. For greenfield developments and bedroom communities there will be significantly more costs passed onto the existing taxpayer than developed urban areas, disproportionally discriminating against low-income rural communities. As such in its current form I cannot support Bill 23.

Beyond the ecconomic costs i am extreamley concerned with the lack of public space that will be created by the changes, the lack of protection for endangered species, and the removal of conservation authorities ability to prevent flooding.